Payne v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Payne v. State

44 S.E.2d 562, 75 Ga. App. 737, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 631

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 1, 1947

Docket31760.

StatusPublished

This text of 44 S.E.2d 562 (Payne v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Payne v. State, 44 S.E.2d 562, 75 Ga. App. 737, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 631 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

1. “The grant or refusal of an extraordinary motion for a new trial based upon the ground of newly discovered testimony, rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge; and this court will *738 ndt interfere with the exercise of that discretion, where the newly discovered evidence is largely impeaching and cumulative in- character, and where it does not appear that such an extraordinary state of facts was shown by the affidavits submitted upon the hearing of the extraordinary motion as would probably produce a different result if a new trial should be granted.” Darby v. State, 24 Ga. App. 269 (100 S. E. 656). See also Rogers v. State, 129 Ga. 589 (59 S. E. 288) ; Thomas v. State, 19 Ga. App. 242 (91 S. E. 287) ; Moon v. State, 51 Ga. App. 70 (179 S. E. 589) ; Harrell v. State, 69 Ga. App. 482 (26 S. E. 2d, 151).

Decided October 1, 1947. John B. Morris, Linton S. Johnson, for plaintiff in error. B. Howard Gordon, Solicitor-General, contra.

2. In the instant case, defendant in error relies upon the affidavit of N. C. Carroll, which in its general character was merely cumulative to the case heretofore presented, and impeaching, and this court can not say that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the extraordinary motion for a new trial. See Payne v. State, 74 Ga. App. 646 (40 S. E. 2d, 759), for a statement of the case when previously before this court.

•Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P. .J. and Gardner, J. concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Townsend, J.

1. “The grant or refusal of an extraordinary motion for a new trial based upon the ground of newly discovered testimony, rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge; and this court will *738 ndt interfere with the exercise of that discretion, where the newly discovered evidence is largely impeaching and cumulative in- character, and where it does not appear that such an extraordinary state of facts was shown by the affidavits submitted upon the hearing of the extraordinary motion as would probably produce a different result if a new trial should be granted.” Darby v. State, 24 Ga. App. 269 (100 S. E. 656). See also Rogers v. State, 129 Ga. 589 (59 S. E. 288) ; Thomas v. State, 19 Ga. App. 242 (91 S. E. 287) ; Moon v. State, 51 Ga. App. 70 (179 S. E. 589) ; Harrell v. State, 69 Ga. App. 482 (26 S. E. 2d, 151).

Decided October 1, 1947. John B. Morris, Linton S. Johnson, for plaintiff in error. B. Howard Gordon, Solicitor-General, contra.

2. In the instant case, defendant in error relies upon the affidavit of N. C. Carroll, which in its general character was merely cumulative to the case heretofore presented, and impeaching, and this court can not say that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the extraordinary motion for a new trial. See Payne v. State, 74 Ga. App. 646 (40 S. E. 2d, 759), for a statement of the case when previously before this court.

•Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P. .J. and Gardner, J. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 S.E.2d 562, 75 Ga. App. 737, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-state-gactapp-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack